When the Ego hinders the spirit

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Hi Greenslade,

I came across the term ego when taking a psychology class, way back when.
So associated it with our psychological make up.

Then I got into reading some Eastern philosophies and teachings, in my twenties, and "ego" took on a whole new outlook.

But, all in all it came and comes across to me as refocusing ones thinking.

So, the two seem to mix in a way. Guess the debate and/or discussions seem to go around and around as to what the end result should be or could be, IMO.

I read a book on cognitive thinking. It went into various patterns and habits of the way one may think and perceive things. This can affect how one feels.

Example, all or nothing thinking. It is either this way or not. Which leads to a black and white veiw of thing. Find life is not like this. There are some grey areas and different points of view.

When using stepping out of the room, am not meaning to imply just walking away fro the "ego" or self identity. It is more of finding the space to listen to oneself. Get away from all the chatter and hearsay. What is the intuition and Spirit telling me?

Spiritual and psychological do blend together, the labels and terms give reference as to the manner in which "ego" or anything is being referred to and discussed.

Yes, information is processed through the ol' brain box in order to make sense.
It is as perceived to be and find much more. The much more makes it interesting and brings tegu use to my mind to look beyond just what is thought to be.

"Ego" for me is just self identification and how my thoughts play into it. It is not "evil" unless thought to be. The irony is even thinking such does not make it so.

Just a guidepost and label to bring attention to that aspect in ourselves.

Can realize our essence, but doesn't what manifest from this make life oh so much more? Why, try and kill it? I say embrace it, for it is a part of being human. It gave rise to our desire to seek out more and be more. To think, observe, interact, the needs and not all flow with in us. Yes, we are pretty awesome in our own being/as entities.

Sure can sit naked in perpetual meditation, but even in this state would see a person there connecting with Spirit, just in thier own way.

I don't view things as whether "ego" is doing it or not, just find it interesting what the term is pointing at. It is all this person being as I am at present.

Just a matter of focus and being open, IMO.

In the early days I needed to find out what ego was, because what was being said about it in the forums wasn't making any sense. 'Ego death' was making less, because I could figure out how anyone could 'kill' an aspect of themselves. That's when I first taking an interest in Jung and some psychology, not in a great way but enough that a lamebrain like me could at least talk about 'ego' from an informed position. I also cam to discover thinking patterns and things like Pavlov'e theory and Maslo's Hierarchy of Needs, both of which Spirituality can be mapped onto. Spirituality often has cognitive dissonance, which is where the brain tries to resolve interference patterns in seemingly-conflicting concepts. All of those thing can affect Spirituality in so many ways, and while people are self-aware of the Spirituality they're less self-aware of what makes then tick and is the foundations of their belief system. Oh well.

I was given a very simple definition of ego from my Guide - "It is the focal point for your existential experience." That worked nicely because - poetically - I could stand 'here' and look across the landscape of my sphere of consciousness. What does that is a different story, but the bottom line is that it still provides the foundations.

The simplest explanation of 'ego' I've seen is that it's a sense of I Am. "I Am Spiritual."

[Molearner]

[quote=Greenslade
The simplest explanation of 'ego' I've seen is that it's a sense of I Am. "I Am Spiritual."[/QUOTE]

Greenslde,

This brings a smile to my face......:) It is a stark reminder that consensus on these forums is, at best, an elusive dream. In my case, rather than explaining ego by saying "I am spiritual"..........I would probably say that ego denotes that I am alone and, therefore, in danger....:)

Originally Posted by Molearner

Greenslade,

Thanks for your response. It would have been helpful if you had provided Jung's definition of ego. My quick Google of 'Jung's definition of ego' yielded this: "According to Jung, the ego represents the conscious mind as it comprises the thoughts, memories, and emotions a person is aware of. The ego is largely responsible for feelings of identity and continuity"(end of quote). I interpet 'identity' as that awareness that separates us from others. I interpret 'continuity' as that which relates to one's desire for survival.

What I offered was not a defintion per se even though I foolishly used the word 'definition'. Specifically, I spoke of 'programs and functions'.....now this, of course, is a legitimate subject for debate. I took notice in this forum.....#1030 in 'Qutoes From the Masters and Teachers' provided by _A human Being_ :"Part of the basic condition of the human body-mind is a certain protective contraction that creates the ego structure-that's just part of being human, and it's not a problem. The ego doesn't need to be dismantled, only seen for what it is.'-Jon Bernie(end of quote). Naturally I focused on the words 'protective contraction'. So while you might disagree with my concept of the ego, as is often the case, one can find confirmation(or agreement) from others.

Furthermore, you seem to be loyal to a static definition of ego as initially provided by Jung. Frankly I would think Jung would be gratified by the attempts of others to consider his exposition and any subsequent attempts to understand it and expand it in ways that reveal the implications of it.....specifically programs and functions.

You're welcome, Molearner

I very much like simple explanations because they often provide a 'point of origin' for my thoughts. The simplest definition for ego is Jung's "A sense of I am." What you've uncovered is fine and short of arguing over semantics I'd go along with your interpretations. Similarly I can see sense in what you've quoted from the book and would agree with the sentiment. One of the reasons I've stayed with Jung is that he's pretty much the leading expert, although granted there has been further work since by others. Sometimes psychology discussions and Spirituality don't go down too well. Often discussions of Spirituality and anything else don't go down too well so I tend to keep the 'non-Spiritual' short, sweet and to the point.

The ego has also been described as 'information central', the hub of where all existential 'data' in any shape or form is routed through and that includes anything we can become consciously aware of. If we're going to understand that process then we need to start digging deep into how we process our conscious reality, and it's along way from the Spiritual 'model' - if there is such a thing. What is also changing is neuroscience, so while the traditional way of thinking is that information is routed through our synapses, the brain is beginning to look more like a quantum processor that is quantum-entangled with the field of probability that is the source of physical reality. I'm not quite sure what that might do to Jung's head were he able to hear it. So when Spirituality portrays ego as the root of all evil, personally I don't see much point in an in-depth discussion within that context. To be frank, yours and Moonglow's posts are the closest I've come to a more psychological discussion.

My own perspective on goes along with the model of Gestalt reality, which I've never seen discussed here even though I've brought it up a few times. For me, it answers a lot of Spiritual questions and puts so much into perspective but nobody seems interested. It also explains all this ego. self, Self labelling and redefining that can go on sometimes and brings us into the understanding of how we are multi-dimensional beings after all but then there's more psychology at play than Spirituality.

Originally Posted by Molearner

In retrospect, I should have realized that ego is a sensitive subject for many. I simply wished to propose that fear is a hindrance to spirituality. Perhaps there are those that would that would argue that fear is an aid to spirituality. It certainly seems to be employed in that way by many religious fundamentalists. So I can understand arguments that emanate from that particular viewpoint. I was, of course, suggesting that a source of fear is from what I understand to be called the ego. Once again, anyone is free to dispute that notion........:)

The darkest places in the Universe are the places where we choose not to go to.

Originally Posted by Molearner

Greenslde,

This brings a smile to my face......:) It is a stark reminder that consensus on these forums is, at best, an elusive dream. In my case, rather than explaining ego by saying "I am spiritual"..........I would probably say that ego denotes that I am alone and, therefore, in danger....:)

"When I make my enemy my friend, he is no longer my enemy." When you take the veneer from Spirituality something very different emerges. People who are Spiritual, people who go to church on Sunday, people who have a career in service are all trying to fulfil the same need; the need to be a part of something bigger than themselves. When ego is an individuated aspect of ourselves and treated as such, it too can be more when it's a part of a greater whole and becomes a willing participant in the process. Then it becomes much more interesting.

[Molearner]

[quote=Greenslade When ego is an individuated aspect of ourselves and treated as such, it too can be more when it's a part of a greater whole and becomes a willing participant in the process. Then it becomes much more interesting.[/QUOTE]

Greenslade,

"it too can be more when it's a part of a greater whole'" I like that thought. A word play to consider: 'I AM=recognition of being part of the whole..........vs. "I AM=being 'apart' from the whole. I have a sneaking suspicion that there might be many on both sides of this.....:) Once again, humanity's failure to communicate(and clarify)........:)

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by Molearner

Greenslade,

"it too can be more when it's a part of a greater whole'" I like that thought. A word play to consider: 'I AM=recognition of being part of the whole..........vs. "I AM=being 'apart' from the whole. I have a sneaking suspicion that there might be many on both sides of this.....:) Once again, humanity's failure to communicate(and clarify)........:)

why should one choose either of those imposters?

[Moonglow]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

In the early days I needed to find out what ego was, because what was being said about it in the forums wasn't making any sense. 'Ego death' was making less, because I could figure out how anyone could 'kill' an aspect of themselves. That's when I first taking an interest in Jung and some psychology, not in a great way but enough that a lamebrain like me could at least talk about 'ego' from an informed position. I also cam to discover thinking patterns and things like Pavlov'e theory and Maslo's Hierarchy of Needs, both of which Spirituality can be mapped onto. Spirituality often has cognitive dissonance, which is where the brain tries to resolve interference patterns in seemingly-conflicting concepts. All of those thing can affect Spirituality in so many ways, and while people are self-aware of the Spirituality they're less self-aware of what makes then tick and is the foundations of their belief system. Oh well.

I was given a very simple definition of ego from my Guide - "It is the focal point for your existential experience." That worked nicely because - poetically - I could stand 'here' and look across the landscape of my sphere of consciousness. What does that is a different story, but the bottom line is that it still provides the foundations.

The simplest explanation of 'ego' I've seen is that it's a sense of I Am. "I Am Spiritual."

What you present, Greenslade, brought the thought; Ego is the self proclaiming itself.

Much like what you present: A sense of I Am. "I Am Spiritual" Playing with this, is an aspect of self proclaiming itself or attaching to an identity. Is this all I Am? What does this mean? In answering the questions and creating more questions, one holds to the formed identity of I Am being Spiritual.

When letting go of the attachment then one frees the mind to explore or notice, I Am is more then just Spiritual. Even in this realization, another attachment in mind may occur. Now I Am blissful, free, no thing.

Again, is this all I Am? The attachment forms patterns in thinking which fortifies the original thought identifying I or what I Am.

They're just thoughts and yes they have impact and can give comfort or dis-ease.
But they change as ones perception changes as one grows. Or they solidify and one gets stuck with in the pattern.

This is somewhat how I come to understand the idea of "ego". It is proclaiming ones identity or what one may identify with. But, it is only a reference point. A way to make sense of oneself as this person being.

Nothing evil with ego, it can get out of balance though. One can become arrogant and/or fearful of losing control. One can form a "false" image of oneself due to trauma or fear of what others my think. This is just how I am looking at it at present.

Ideally it is finding and being in that middle space where the two spheres meet.
The Physical (what forms) and Spiritual ( what inspires, just is).

Now, playing a bit with the thoughts that arise here and how this "I" may get identified.

Originally Posted by Molearner

Greenslade,

"it too can be more when it's a part of a greater whole'" I like that thought. A word play to consider: 'I AM=recognition of being part of the whole..........vs. "I AM=being 'apart' from the whole. I have a sneaking suspicion that there might be many on both sides of this.....:) Once again, humanity's failure to communicate(and clarify)........:)

There are many ways to think. Often binary thinking is used because of our thinking patterns - binary thinking is simple accept or reject according to current information and framework. It's where paradoxes stem from - which are really dichotomies. Two-dimensional. Triplex Unity is favoured by the pre-Taoist alchemists, basically its the pattern that 'there is this, there is that and there is both'. That gives you two dimensions, a third where they 'overlap' and a fourth which encompasses. That's best envisioned by Sacred Geometry, where incidentally the ego can be placed as an understanding tool. There is also Paradoxical Logic - there is this, that, neither and both. That takes a bit of headspace to process.

It's OK to navigate perspectives. In your wordplay, I am being a part and am being apart, and I am being neither and both.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

My own perspective on goes along with the model of Gestalt reality, which I've never seen discussed here even though I've brought it up a few times. For me, it answers a lot of Spiritual questions and puts so much into perspective but nobody seems interested. It also explains all this ego. self, Self labelling and redefining that can go on sometimes and brings us into the understanding of how we are multi-dimensional beings after all but then there's more psychology at play than Spirituality.

Interesting because neuroscience seems to be attempting to make good the criticism that Gestalt is top-down without considering the bottom-up stimuli/processes that lead to the build up of experiences, occurring even before anything is brought into conscious awareness but that percolate into those experience(s) and various memory schema, initially about approach-withdraw responses but leading into the spacial processing of the brain that distinguishes the individual from their immediate environment and later taking in other possibilities/strategies depending on things like goal-directed behaviour.

.

[weareunity]

Hello Lorelyen.
Re your post above. As a matter of interest--to me, though possibly to nobody else--. Is the suggestion put forward in post 55 page 6 on this thread an untutored attempt to describe something of the thinking which you outline in your post above? Lacking the knowledge of the the terminology which you have used I find myself unable to judge if this is indeed the case. I am genuinely interested to know the thoughts regarding this subject as put forward by others. Cheers. petex